We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.

Astronauts on a mission to Mars could lose nearly half their muscle strength during the long trip, giving them the physiques of senior citizens by the time they arrived, according to a new study. Prolonged exposure to weightlessness could cause astronauts to lose more than 40 percent of their muscle strength even with regular exercise, researchers said. On a long voyage, a healthy 30- to 50-year-old astronaut could end up with the strength of an 80-year-old.

A 10-month trip to Mars would cause such extreme muscle deterioration that astronauts would find it difficult to perform even routine tasks, let alone move around the Martian surface in spacesuits, according to the study, which was led by Robert Fitts of Marquette University.

And yet I found that Mars wasn't an entirely happy subject in Houston—especially among people who believe that humans, not only robots, should be exploring there.

The point is, we've had half a century to work on this problem, and apart from slapping a few treadmills around, not only have they not gained any ground, but the problems are only getting worse. As durations in space last longer and longer, more and more problems arise. Blindness occurring later in life is the latest small snag.

Then there was the day I broke so many hearts by reporting that mermaids don't exist. Rarely have I been so cruel.

A study by Western Australia's Murdoch University concluded that DNA cannot survive more than 6.8 million years - a finding that effectively rules out the tantalising prospect of replicating dinosaurs. Most dinosaurs died out about 65 million years ago.

"We've been permanently plagued by this Jurassic Park myth that's been kicking around since the early nineties," lead researcher Mike Bunce told the Sydney Morning Herald.

Yeah, well, welcome to the Hollywood Curse. Probably 50 million people believe the global warming horrors they saw in The Day After Tomorrow are real. Another 50 mil probably think the government can watch your every step via spy satellite as in Enemy Of The State. Another 50 mil probably believe President Kennedy wasn't assassinated by a lone gunman thanks to Oliver Stone's JFK. The list goes on and on.

But still, no horrific velociraptors eviscerating us with their 6-inch talons in the noonday sun, spilling our entrails onto the ground as they enjoy a tasty little snack?

I'll still believe in Mermaids no matter what you say. (P.s. when I checked out the link I was warmed to see how Marianne Matthews put you in your place...again. Hard to think she's no longer on this plane. Her spirit will watch over you, Merc).

Really Doc - you'd almost think you were a Democrat. Hmmm - maybe you ARE a Democrat.

Just because we're not at the point where ion drives, artificial gravity and other various and sundry technical innovations aren't available doesn't mean that they WON'T be available at some point allowing for space travel.

According to one of those articles, $500 billion over 30 years - we spend more than that on failed solar energy projects last year alone.

One does not have to defy Einstein as one can play with the space/time entities to make things theoretically happen. One would also have to assume that if a warp drive can be made (which by the way would, in theory, exceed the speed of light) would all be part that scientific advancement.

But, giving them a substitute for the loss of gravity will. Spin Habs are a start, but more research into gravatics (okay, okay, geeky scifi mumbo-jumbo....), or something else, could solve this.

I remember when they said the Ion and warp drive engines were mere pulp dreams. From a bunch of egg-heads, warping space may not be too unreachable, and, we do have an Ion drive working in space. Heck, they laughed at Kirk and his flip communicator and Spock's tricorder. Sometimes, I think my Android phone is getting close...

We have ion drives today. And a sort of artificial gravity: centrifugal force.

"The point is, we've had half a century to work on this problem,"

Meaningless. What matters is how much effort we've put into working on these problems, and the answer to that question is not much at all. Much like the fusion problem in that respect. Fifty years ago, controlled fusion was said to be twenty years away. Today, controlled fusion is still said to be twenty years away -- because the technology involved is staggeringly expensive, so researchers working on controlled fusion reactors get only small amounts of funding and can only afford to build one or two bigger and better 'experimental reactors' at a time.

Likewise, I'm sure, with the issue of physical deterioration in zero-g. We could solve it if we put the needed resources into it. We haven't done that, so of course it isn't solved. This is a symptom of the larger problem with the manned space program: we haven't really put much money, materiel, or manpower into it in at least forty years. If we had maintained the level of commitment that made Project Apollo a reality, we'd be all over the solar system already, and building colonizer starships to make generation voyages to the nearest star(s).

Well, I ask again, what about Einstein? The claim that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light was recently semi-proved again by the experiment that claimed it had -- then was promptly debunked.

I'm not saying he's right -- but you and others and claiming he's wrong. There's a difference.

I'm assuming Einstein is correct, and we're not going to find any whizbang warp drive or wormholes. If we find a pathway to convert matter to anti-matter without great energy cost, we can make a propulsion system that gets up to 0.2c to 0.4c and gets us to AlphaC in 10 to 15 years, all within the bounds of relativity.

The only big "if" is finding that pathway, and I'm reasonably confident that we will, as our understanding of nuclear physics matures over the next century or so. Failing to find the pathway, we would probably have to fall back to fusion drives, and that might make the trip 10 or more times as long, but still doable.

What we won't have in the foreseeable future is the Star Trek/Star Wars bop about the galaxy, tea on Rigel 4, nighty night under the moons of Arcturus 7, and zero to superlight speed in one second without the crew getting plastered all over the back wall of the spaceship.

We'll spread through this arm of the galaxy one system at a time, expensive and risky one-way colonizing trips. Short of a collapse of civilization, which I'll leave to the eeyores to ruminate, how could we possibly not do this?

E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications.

To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly.Enter the string from the spam-prevention image above: